Legal Proceedings	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
Disclosure Text Block Supplement [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	Legal Proceedings. Shareholder and Derivative Litigation. On March 4, 2015, a purported class action complaint was filed entitled Yeung v. Akorn, Inc., et al., in the federal district court of Northern District of Illinois, No. 15-cv-1944. The complaint alleged that the Company and three of its officers violated the federal securities laws in connection with matters related to its accounting and financial reporting in the wake of its acquisitions of Hi-Tech Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. and VersaPharm, Inc. A second, related case entitled Sarzynski v. Akorn, Inc., et al., No. 15-cv-3921, was filed on May 4, 2015 making similar allegations. On August 24, 2015, the two cases were consolidated and a lead plaintiff appointed in In re Akorn, Inc. Securities Litigation. On July 5, 2016, the lead plaintiff group filed a consolidated amended complaint making similar allegations against the Company and an officer and former officer of the Company. The consolidated amended complaint seeks damages on behalf of the putative class. On August 9, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case. The motion has been fully briefed and is pending with the court. The Company’s Board of Directors also received shareholder demand letters and four shareholder derivative lawsuits have been filed alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the Company’s accounting for its acquisition and the restatement of its financials. The demands request that legal action be taken against certain of the Company’s directors and officers or former officers and other actions. The Company’s Board of Directors formed a special committee to conduct an inquiry into the demand allegations and to provide its conclusions and recommendations to the Board. The Board has completed that process and concluded that it would not be in the best interest of the Company to pursue such claims. Two of the derivative lawsuits, Safriet v. Rai, et al., No. 15-cv-7275, and Glaubach v. Rai, et al., No. 15- 11129, were filed in the Northern District of Illinois. These cases have been stayed pending anticipated rulings on the defendants’ motion to dismiss in In re Akorn, Inc. Securities Litigation. A third lawsuit, Kogut v. Akorn, Inc., et al., No. 646174, was filed in Louisiana state court in the Parish of East Baton Rouge, on March 8, 2016. On June 10, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting shareholder derivative claims similar to the others asserted in the other derivative lawsuits. On September 23, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the case. Briefing on that motion is not yet complete. A fourth lawsuit, Miller v. Rai, et al., No. 16 CH 1363, was filed on September 8, 2016 in Illinois state court in the Circuit Court of Lake County. On October 17, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case. Briefing on that motion is not yet complete. Fera Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Akorn Inc., Sean Brynjelsen, and Michael Stehn, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 12-cv-07692-LLS. Fera Pharmaceuticals, LLC (“Fera”) filed this action on September 12, 2012. The defendants in the case are the Company, one former employee of the Company, Sean Brynjelsen and a current employee of the Company, Michael Stehn. The amended complaint generally alleges that the Company breached certain terms of a contract manufacturing supply agreement by, among other things, failing to manufacture Fera’s products, raising the manufacturing cost, and impermissibly terminating the contract. In addition, Fera alleges that the Company misappropriated Fera’s trade secrets in order to manufacture Erythromycin and Bacitracin for its own benefit. The counts in the amended complaint are for (1) breach of contract, (2) misappropriation of trade secrets, (3) fraudulent inducement, and (4) declaratory and injunctive relief. Fera seeks $135 million in compensatory damages, an additional, unspecified amount in punitive damages, and injunctive relief restraining the Company from selling the products at issue in the case. The Company filed a counterclaim against Fera and certain affiliates, as well as Perrigo Company of Tennessee and Perrigo Company plc, asserting violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and tortious interference with business relations. The case is still in the discovery phase, and no trial date has been scheduled. State of Louisiana v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al. The Louisiana Attorney General filed suit, Number 624,522, Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, including Hi-Tech Pharmacal and other defendants, in Louisiana state court. Louisiana’s complaint alleges that the defendants violated Louisiana state laws in connection with Medicaid reimbursement for certain vitamins, dietary supplements, and DESI products that were allegedly ineligible for reimbursement. The defendants filed exceptions of no cause of action and no right of action in response to Louisiana’s amended complaint. In a judgment entered on October 2, 2015, the trial court sustained the defendants’ exception of no right of action, which dismissed all of Louisiana’s claims. Louisiana sought appellate review of the court’s decision by filing an application for supervisory writs, as well as an appeal pending in the First Circuit Court of Appeal in Louisiana. On October 21, 2016, the First Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Specifically, the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of four of the six causes of action pled in Louisiana’s amended complaint, but reversed the dismissal with respect to the two remaining statutory claims. On November 4, 2016, Louisiana filed an application for rehearing with respect to the First Circuit’s affirmance. On December 22, 2016, the First Circuit denied Louisiana’s application. On January 20, 2017, Louisiana filed an application for certiorari in the Louisiana Supreme Court as to the portion of the First Circuit’s decision affirming the trial court’s judgment. On January 23, 2017, the defendants filed an application for certiorari in the Louisiana Supreme Court as to the portion of the First Circuit’s decision reversing the trial court’s judgment. Both applications remain pending. Former Hi-Tech director and employee Reuben Seltzer delivered to the Company a demand letter in August 2014 alleging that the Company breached his employment agreement and improperly terminated Mr. Seltzer’s employment. In the fourth quarter of 2016, the Company and Mr. Seltzer entered into a confidential settlement agreement and release agreement resolving all matters in dispute. In addition to the foregoing matters, Akorn has received shareholder demands for legal action to be taken against certain of the Company’s directors and officers based on alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and other misconduct in connection with the Company’s restatement of financial results and other matters. Akorn’s Board of Directors formed a special committee that conducted an inquiry into the demand allegations and provided its conclusions and recommendations to the Board. Other Matters The Chicago Regional Office of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is conducting an investigation regarding the previously disclosed restatement, internal controls and other related matters. Additionally, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO) has requested information regarding these matters. Akorn has been furnishing requested information and is fully cooperating with the SEC and USAO. The legal matters discussed above could result in losses, including damages, fines and civil penalties, and criminal charges, which could be substantial. We record accruals for these contingencies to the extent that we conclude that a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable. As of the date of this filing, although the Company has determined that liabilities associated with these legal matters is reasonably possible, they cannot be reasonably estimated. Given the nature of the litigation and investigations discussed above and the complexities involved, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a possible loss for such matters until the Company knows, among other factors, (i) what claims, if any, will survive dispositive motion practice, (ii) the extent of the claims, including the size of any potential class, particularly when damages are not specified or are indeterminate, (iii) how the discovery process will affect the litigation, (iv) the settlement posture of the other parties to the litigation and (v) any other factors that may have a material effect on the litigation or investigation. However, we could incur judgments, enter into settlements or revise our expectations regarding the outcome of certain matters, and such developments could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which the amounts are accrued and/or our cash flows in the period in which the amounts are paid.

Legal Proceedings.

Shareholder and Derivative Litigation. On March 4, 2015, a purported class action complaint was filed entitled Yeung v. Akorn, Inc., et al., in the federal district court of Northern District of Illinois, No. 15-cv-1944. The complaint alleged that the Company and three of its officers violated the federal securities laws in connection with matters related to its accounting and financial reporting in the wake of its acquisitions of Hi-Tech Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. and VersaPharm, Inc. A second, related case entitled Sarzynski v. Akorn, Inc., et al., No. 15-cv-3921, was filed on May 4, 2015 making similar allegations. On August 24, 2015, the two cases were consolidated and a lead plaintiff appointed in In re Akorn, Inc. Securities Litigation. On July 5, 2016, the lead plaintiff group filed a consolidated amended complaint making similar allegations against the Company and an officer and former officer of the Company. The consolidated amended complaint seeks damages on behalf of the putative class. On August 9, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case. The motion has been fully briefed and is pending with the court.

The Company’s Board of Directors also received shareholder demand letters and four shareholder derivative lawsuits have been filed alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the Company’s accounting for its acquisition and the restatement of its financials. The demands request that legal action be taken against certain of the Company’s directors and officers or former officers and other actions. The Company’s Board of Directors formed a special committee to conduct an inquiry into the demand allegations and to provide its conclusions and recommendations to the Board. The Board has completed that process and concluded that it would not be in the best interest of the Company to pursue such claims.

Two of the derivative lawsuits, Safriet v. Rai, et al., No. 15-cv-7275, and Glaubach v. Rai, et al., No. 15- 11129, were filed in the Northern District of Illinois. These cases have been stayed pending anticipated rulings on the defendants’ motion to dismiss in In re Akorn, Inc. Securities Litigation. A third lawsuit, Kogut v. Akorn, Inc., et al., No. 646174, was filed in Louisiana state court in the Parish of East Baton Rouge, on March 8, 2016. On June 10, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting shareholder derivative claims similar to the others asserted in the other derivative lawsuits. On September 23, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the case. Briefing on that motion is not yet complete. A fourth lawsuit, Miller v. Rai, et al., No. 16 CH 1363, was filed on September 8, 2016 in Illinois state court in the Circuit Court of Lake County. On October 17, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case. Briefing on that motion is not yet complete.

Fera Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Akorn Inc., Sean Brynjelsen, and Michael Stehn, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 12-cv-07692-LLS. Fera Pharmaceuticals, LLC (“Fera”) filed this action on September 12, 2012. The defendants in the case are the Company, one former employee of the Company, Sean Brynjelsen and a current employee of the Company, Michael Stehn. The amended complaint generally alleges that the Company breached certain terms of a contract manufacturing supply agreement by, among other things, failing to manufacture Fera’s products, raising the manufacturing cost, and impermissibly terminating the contract. In addition, Fera alleges that the Company misappropriated Fera’s trade secrets in order to manufacture Erythromycin and Bacitracin for its own benefit. The counts in the amended complaint are for (1) breach of contract, (2) misappropriation of trade secrets, (3) fraudulent inducement, and (4) declaratory and injunctive relief. Fera seeks $135 million in compensatory damages, an additional, unspecified amount in punitive damages, and injunctive relief restraining the Company from selling the products at issue in the case. The Company filed a counterclaim against Fera and certain affiliates, as well as Perrigo Company of Tennessee and Perrigo Company plc, asserting violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and tortious interference with business relations. The case is still in the discovery phase, and no trial date has been scheduled.

State of Louisiana v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al. The Louisiana Attorney General filed suit, Number 624,522, Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, including Hi-Tech Pharmacal and other defendants, in Louisiana state court. Louisiana’s complaint alleges that the defendants violated Louisiana state laws in connection with Medicaid reimbursement for certain vitamins, dietary supplements, and DESI products that were allegedly ineligible for reimbursement. The defendants filed exceptions of no cause of action and no right of action in response to Louisiana’s amended complaint. In a judgment entered on October 2, 2015, the trial court sustained the defendants’ exception of no right of action, which dismissed all of Louisiana’s claims. Louisiana sought appellate review of the court’s decision by filing an application for supervisory writs, as well as an appeal pending in the First Circuit Court of Appeal in Louisiana. On October 21, 2016, the First Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Specifically, the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of four of the six causes of action pled in Louisiana’s amended complaint, but reversed the dismissal with respect to the two remaining statutory claims. On November 4, 2016, Louisiana filed an application for rehearing with respect to the First Circuit’s affirmance. On December 22, 2016, the First Circuit denied Louisiana’s application. On January 20, 2017, Louisiana filed an application for certiorari in the Louisiana Supreme Court as to the portion of the First Circuit’s decision affirming the trial court’s judgment. On January 23, 2017, the defendants filed an application for certiorari in the Louisiana Supreme Court as to the portion of the First Circuit’s decision reversing the trial court’s judgment. Both applications remain pending.

Former Hi-Tech director and employee Reuben Seltzer delivered to the Company a demand letter in August 2014 alleging that the Company breached his employment agreement and improperly terminated Mr. Seltzer’s employment. In the fourth quarter of 2016, the Company and Mr. Seltzer entered into a confidential settlement agreement and release agreement resolving all matters in dispute.

In addition to the foregoing matters, Akorn has received shareholder demands for legal action to be taken against certain of the Company’s directors and officers based on alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and other misconduct in connection with the Company’s restatement of financial results and other matters. Akorn’s Board of Directors formed a special committee that conducted an inquiry into the demand allegations and provided its conclusions and recommendations to the Board.

Other Matters

The Chicago Regional Office of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is conducting an investigation regarding the previously disclosed restatement, internal controls and other related matters. Additionally, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO) has requested information regarding these matters. Akorn has been furnishing requested information and is fully cooperating with the SEC and USAO.

The legal matters discussed above could result in losses, including damages, fines and civil penalties, and criminal charges, which could be substantial. We record accruals for these contingencies to the extent that we conclude that a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable. As of the date of this filing, although the Company has determined that liabilities associated with these legal matters is reasonably possible, they cannot be reasonably estimated. Given the nature of the litigation and investigations discussed above and the complexities involved, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a possible loss for such matters until the Company knows, among other factors, (i) what claims, if any, will survive dispositive motion practice, (ii) the extent of the claims, including the size of any potential class, particularly when damages are not specified or are indeterminate, (iii) how the discovery process will affect the litigation, (iv) the settlement posture of the other parties to the litigation and (v) any other factors that may have a material effect on the litigation or investigation. However, we could incur judgments, enter into settlements or revise our expectations regarding the outcome of certain matters, and such developments could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which the amounts are accrued and/or our cash flows in the period in which the amounts are paid.